The evidence for Evolution.

[-57]

Why?



Is it? When was "nothing" ever studied, to be able to make such an assessment?



Go to a quantum physicist, and repeat that.

When you can demonstrate how something can self create itself from nothing....get back to me.

 

[-57]

That's incorrect. It's the other way round: time exists inside the universe.
Space-time is what the universe consists of. Time is an integral part of the universe.
So to say that the universe exists INSIDE of time, is just plain wrong.



Well... strictly speaking, the universe DID always exist.
You see... "always" is a period of time. For all of time, to be exact.
So whenever time itself existed, there was a universe. How could it be otherwise, since time is an integral part of the of the universe?

So yea... the space-time continuum has always existed. That is not an incorrect statement at all.



Time isn't infinite in the past.

Let me repeat:
1) If the universe existed from eternity past....today would never arrive. Yet, here we are.
2) If the universe existed from eternity past then through entropy it would have lost all it's energy eons ago.

 

[-57]

Again: time isn't infinite in the past.

I agree...which is a major problem for you and how stuff got here.

 

[-57]

Just like you can't deny the possibility that pixies make grass grow, that we are all in brains in vats or that leperechauns hide pots of gold at the bases of rainbows.

Pointing out that unfalsifiable claims can't be falsified, is as useless as it gets.

Or you like to think...there is no God.

Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Theirs.

Exactly what they'd say about yours.

By comparing it to the Documentation.

Again, they too would say the same of yours compared to their Documentation.

Can you tell which team you're on if you score a touchdown and those in white robes cheer, while those in white lab coats frown and complain?

It seems Satan (if he existed) could Easily pull the wool over your eyes given the deceptions you've attributed to him. How could you know that your white robed friends haven't been hoodwinked by Satan, just like you?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

When you can demonstrate how something can self create itself from nothing....get back to me.

Right after you demonstrate how someone has always existed, then randomly decided one day to poof everything out of nothing.

 

[-57]

Right after you demonstrate how someone has always existed, then randomly decided one day to poof everything out of nothing.

I already have...inorder for anything to exist there has to be an uncreated creator. Plain and simple.

 

[Gene2memE]

I already have...inorder for anything to exist there has to be an uncreated creator. Plain and simple.

Assertion is not evidence or support for a claim.

 

[Speedwell]

Assertion is not evidence or support for a claim.

It's not even much of a claim. The argument presented tells us nothing at all about the nature of that creator. It might even be an entity which would not offend the sensibilities of an atheist. In particular, it is a very long step indeed between the "uncreated creator" and the God of 57's Bible.

 

[-57]

Assertion is not evidence or support for a claim.

Then show all of us how stuff got here.

 

[USincognito]

This thread is about evolution folks. And apologetics are not allowed in this subforum.

 

[Gene2memE]

Then show all of us how stuff got here.

I don't have to. Your claim is that an "uncreated creator" did it all, so you're the one that needs to support the claim.

Secondly, I don't know "how stuff got here". Pre-Big Bang cosmology is not a field I'm particularly conversant with I've got a fuzzy, layman's understanding of the rapid expansion of space time post the Planc-epoch, the formation of Baryonic matter and the development of the macro-scale universe.

My absence of an explanation does not advance your hypothesis one iota though. Until you can provide valid, supporting evidence for your claim of an "uncreated creator" - instead of pure argument with assertion - I'm fine with "I don't know".

I would note though, that at no point in history have we ever discovered a supernatural explanation that overrides an earlier naturalistic explanation.

 

[-57]

I don't have to. Your claim is that an "uncreated creator" did it all, so you're the one that needs to support the claim.

Secondly, I don't know "how stuff got here". Pre-Big Bang cosmology is not a field I'm particularly conversant with I've got a fuzzy, layman's understanding of the rapid expansion of space time post the Planc-epoch, the formation of Baryonic matter and the development of the macro-scale universe.

My absence of an explanation does not advance your hypothesis one iota though. Until you can provide valid, supporting evidence for your claim of an "uncreated creator" - instead of pure argument with assertion - I'm fine with "I don't know".

I would note though, that at no point in history have we ever discovered a supernatural explanation that overrides an earlier naturalistic explanation.

Sure you do need to explain...if you want to be an atheist. Otherwise I presented a pathway for there being a God...which you are forbidden to allow. (believe).

My question to you is how did stuff come about? You just answered with "I don't know" which is an acceptable answer. I like your honesty. Your problem is that you fail to explore other option that show the need for a God. The ontological argument, or this form of it shows..requires...an uncreated creator...as you have no explanation how stuff can self create from nothing or if it existed eternally how time got to the "now". As a "layman" I would think you would want to explore that avenue. Why does the idea of an uncreated creator bother you?

 

[-57]

This thread is about evolution folks. And apologetics are not allowed in this subforum.

So the last time you posted in this thread was like Oct 21st and that post said

I'm partial to Wegenerism.

....and you feel you have the right to come in here on post 511 and say:

This thread is about evolution folks. And apologetics are not allowed in this subforum.

...are you a moderator or are you trying to stir the pot? You see USincognito, this is why I really don't respond to your post.

 

[USincognito]

So the last time you posted in this thread was like Oct 21st and that post said


....and you feel you have the right to come in here on post 511 and say:

...are you a moderator or are you trying to stir the pot? You see USincognito, this is why I really don't respond to your post.

Why are you talking about me rather than what I posted? You seem to do that an awful lot.

I have a right to come in here because I am a member of this forum and have been since 2003. I have a right to comment on any thread in subforums which are open to all members commenting. I have a right to point out when the subject has gotten away from the OP and when it veers into territory where it's not supposed to go.

Now, would you care to address the fact that this thread has gone into apologetics which is off topic for this subforum and a verboten subject here as well?

 

[Gene2memE]

Sure you do need to explain...if you want to be an atheist.

No.

In order to be an atheist, all I need is to not have a belief in God/gods.

I don't need an explanation for the origin of the universe in order to be an atheist, much like I don't need an explanation for the origin of General Tso's Chicken. It's immaterial to my being convinced whether there are gods/God.

Otherwise I presented a pathway for there being a God...which you are forbidden to allow. (believe).

You presented an assertion that God made the universe. I disbelieve that claim, and I will continue to disbelieve it until such evidence becomes available to overcomes my skepticism of that claim.

My question to you is how did stuff come about? You just answered with "I don't know" which is an acceptable answer. I like your honesty. Your problem is that you fail to explore other option that show the need for a God. The ontological argument, or this form of it shows..requires...an uncreated creator...as you have no explanation how stuff can self create from nothing or if it existed eternally how time got to the "now". As a "layman" I would think you would want to explore that avenue. Why does the idea of an uncreated creator bother you?

An 'uncreated creator' is both an unsupported claim and a logical contradiction, not to mention a stifle to actual inquiry into the nature and origin of the universe.

It doesn't bother me, I just don't think it meets any criteria for a valid explanation of the start of space-time, and actually acts as a roadblock to real examination. All that mental effort wasted on essentially an unprovable claim.

 

[-57]

You presented an assertion that God made the universe. I disbelieve that claim, and I will continue to disbelieve it until such evidence becomes available to overcomes my skepticism of that claim.

What evidense do you have that shows there was no God? If I remember correctly you said...I don't know. I did thank you for being honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly what they'd say about yours.

Do you believe them?

If you don't, do you object if I don't either?

 

[Gene2memE]

What evidense do you have that shows there was no God? If I remember correctly you said...I don't know. I did thank you for being honest.

Not believing the claim there is a God/gods =/= asserting there is no God/gods.

I have not claimed there is no God/gods.

My position is that I do not believe your claim at a God exists. My position is that you have not met a sufficient burden of proof for this claim of existence. I have seen no positive evidence for such, and I continue to see plentiful evidence for the absence of any deity with the properties traditionally assigned to the Judaeo-Christian deity.

 

[-57]

I have not claimed there is no God/gods.

Then change your faith which identifies you with atheist.